Certainly you've been great with our caucus, and I want to thank you for that.
I wanted to take you up on your comments about the issue that had come up with Madam Shepherd and her review in 2010 of McSweeney and Stewart, lobbyists whom she found in breach of rule 8 for having placed the minister in an apparent conflict of interest. According to her, they did so by helping to organize and sell tickets for a fundraising event for a minister's electoral association. They were at the same time lobbying the minister. She said:
In my opinion, private interest is not limited to financial interest or to an interest that generates a direct personal benefit. In my view, it is broader and includes such things as political advantage and family interests, if those interests could recently be considered to create a tension between the public office holder's public duty and his or her private interest.
As she pointed out, you found that the minister hadn't breached any rules.
If we are going to merge and bring greater clarity, would you support where the lobbying commissioner is coming from on this, that the issue of the apparent conflict has to be recognized?